EditorialJournalistically, the issue
of Okara Military Farms has not been easy to handle. The issue first
cropped up in the year 2000 when the military, running these farms along
with several others across the country on lease to provide "fodder
for the armed forces", arbitrarily switched from share-cropping to
land on rent system.

overviewThe tenant commandmentsConfrontation
between the tenants and the security forces at Okara military farms pushes
AMP into action
By Aoun SahiThe murder of three tenants allegedly by an agriculture land
contractor of the military farm in Kulyana Estate, Okara, on April 6,
2009, has once again brought to light the growing tension between the farm
authorities and the tenants in the region.

"Very
simple …"Mehar Abdul Sattar, the 37 years old general secretary of
Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP), is a graduate in Plant Pathology from
Agriculture University, Faisalabad, and a resident of Chak 4/4L Okara
military farm. He was a student when the military farm administration
introduced a system of cultivation for tenants in 2000. Being the son of a
tenant, Mehar naturally joined the resistance movement, eventually
becoming the GS of AMP.

--Ali Hasan Dayan, Senior Researcher, South Asia, Human
Rights Watch (HRW)The News on Sunday: Why did the Human Rights Watch decide to do a
report on the military farms in Okara?
Ali Hasan Dayan: Until the Lawyer's Movement in 2007, the Okara military
farms dispute provided the most compelling example of local resistance to
the military's monopoly on privilege, power and land in its heartland --
the Punjab.

statusLand rights or wrongsThe tenants' struggle is a political rather than a
narrowly legalistic one
By Aasim Sajjad AkhtarAlmost 9 years ago, soon after General Pervez Musharraf had taken
power, a seemingly innocuous attempt by the authorities of the so-called
Okara military farms to change the tenure status of thousands of tenants
who had tilled these state-owned lands for decades triggered the emergence
of the movement which I believe was the beginning of the end for the
military regime. Few would have guessed that the plains of central Punjab
-- the traditional heartland of the military's power -- would be the site
of a highly symbolic struggle against the deeply entrenched corporate
power of the men in khaki.

PPP, PML-N vow to solve the tenants' issue through
negotiations
By Waqar GillaniIt seems that the two main political parties of Punjab -- Pakistan
People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz -- have taken due note of
the worsening situation at Okara military farms and hope to reach a
settlement through negotiations.
Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Sohna, provincial minister for Labour and a PPP
MPA from Okara, tells TNS that the party is well aware of the tenants'
movement and has offered help already. "Since the matter is to be
dealt with by the federal government we are going to make recommendations
to President Asif Ali Zardari after he returns from his foreign tour.

--Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) spokesperson
By Nadeem IqbalThe News on Sunday: What is the background of the remount and military
farms of the Pakistan Army?
ISPR Spokesperson: Remount farms can be divided into two -- those that
deal with animal breeding for military operation and those that provide
troops with dairy products and fodder for the mules and horses etc.

Editorial

Journalistically, the issue of Okara Military Farms has
not been easy to handle. The issue first cropped up in the year 2000 when
the military, running these farms along with several others across the
country on lease to provide "fodder for the armed forces",
arbitrarily switched from share-cropping to land on rent system.

The high court gave a decision against a couple of
tenants and the Pakistan Rangers were called in to implement that
decision. There were protests, rioting, and even killings.

There was sketchy coverage of the issue in the media
and for obvious reasons. Initially there was censorship which later turned
into self-censorship.

But Okara became a special case. Here started a
political organisation of sorts and the tenants got together to fight for
their rights and laid the foundations of Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP).
They weren't much bothered even if the media decided to ignore them. From
what began as a protest against a change of rent collecting system -- from
cash to kind -- they have covered a long distance. The slogan now is 'Malki
ya Maut' (ownership or death).

The legal slope is slippery for all stakeholders. The
military's lease is supposed to have been expired in 1938 and was never
renewed. The tenants who have tilled the land for about a century have no
legal claim either under the Tenancy Act in place. The Punjab government,
which is technically the legal owner of the land, is practically unable to
reclaim this land, given the military's high stakes as a corporate entity.

So what then is the solution? It may be hard to come by
through legal wrangling. The solution has to be political and the two
major parties, which had signed the Charter of Democracy that spoke
against military's occupation of land, must now be questioned on it. The
archaic law did not envisage the democratic norms of twentieth century and
later, and must be replaced with a more humane and equitable law because
that essentially is the purpose of laws -- to serve the interests of
people. The issue has to be weaved in with the broader issue of land
reforms in the country which is very much a political project.

This is the first time that the military's point of
view appears in such detail. Ironically, it is now willing to sit with the
tenants on the negotiating table and revert to the share-cropping system.
But will the tenants, united under the banner of AMP, be ready to settle
on anything less than the slogan they have raised?

overview

The tenant commandments

Confrontation between the tenants and the security
forces at Okara military farms pushes AMP into action

By Aoun Sahi

The murder of three tenants allegedly by an agriculture
land contractor of the military farm in Kulyana Estate, Okara, on April 6,
2009, has once again brought to light the growing tension between the farm
authorities and the tenants in the region.

On April 7, 2009, thousands of tenants from different
military farms gathered at Chak 28A-2R in Kulyana Estate as a protest to
attend the funeral of three fellow villagers. "I've come all the way
from (the military farms at) Haveli Lakha in District Pakpattan to offer
my condolences," said Iqbal Bibi, 45, a mother of four, while talking
to TNS. "They were not my relatives; I am here because I can relate
with them."

Iqbal Bibi was accompanied by her family and about 500
others from her village. "We are not afraid of being killed. The
military and its agents can kill us but they cannot force us to quit our
stance. One day they will have to account for their atrocities."

District Okara's history shows the seeds of trouble
between the military farm administrations and the tenants were sown at the
turn of the century when the former forcibly tried to replace the age-old
crop-sharing system of cultivation with cash-rent and yearly lease system.
The tenants who had tilled the land through generations felt the new
system was meant to have them evicted.

"There was no problem between the military farm
administrations and the tenants before the introduction of the new system
in June 2000," says Nadeem Ashraf, Vice President, Anjuman Mazarain
Punjab (AMP), talking exclusively to TNS. (For a detailed version, see the
interview with AMP Secretary General, Mehar Abdul Sattar

The farm authorities wanted to change the status of
tenants to that of 'contractors' because under The Punjab Tenancy Act 1887
the tenants enjoyed certain rights and it would be hard to evict them from
the lands they have been cultivating for ages. The new system would see
them leaving the land at a six-month notice.

Interestingly, the tyrannies on the part of the farm
administration served to unite the tenants belonging to different villages
and farms, giving birth to a radical movement under the flag of AMP.

Academics believe that the military, in a bid to
implement the new system of agriculture, forced the tenants to resist.
"Till 2000, these people were giving 50 per cent of their crops to
the military and were actually serving the military like anything,"
says Asad Farooq, Assistant Professor, Department of Law and Policy,
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, LUMS.

Currently penning a book on the tenants' movement,
Farooq says the movement in Okara is a "very healthy sign for a
society where we only hear about terrorism, fundamentalism and
Talibanisation.

"AMP is talking about the real issues of the
people of Pakistan. There is a complete shift in the attitude of the
tenants over the past nine years since the movement began. And if they
(the tenants) succeed in evolving a substantial political force it will be
a giant leap towards the solution of Pakistan's problems."

Locals claim during the period from 2000 till present
times, 11 tenants have been killed in different incidents by the
law-enforcing agencies of Pakistan or by the influential civilian
contractor of agriculture land of the area. The farm administrations have
also variously applied all available tactics to pressurise the tenants to
accept the new system of cultivation.

"In 2002, Pakistan Rangers put our village under
virtual siege for two months. They stopped irrigation canal water to our
Chak for three months and cut the main telephone line of the village while
seven employees of different military farms of the village were also
terminated because their parents/relatives living in Chaks of the military
farms were involved in anti-state activities," says Muhammad Ibrahim,
a 60 years old Numberdar of Chak 4/4L.

"So far, they have been reinstated. They also
arrested more than 400 people including children from the village. To
mount more pressure on the tenants, the farm administration arrested the
sons-in-law of many residents of the village."

According to Ibrahim, these "tactics" further
strengthen them to oppose the new system of cultivation. "Today, the
AMP tenants are in possession of the 12,000 acres of land out of a total
of 17,000 acres of the Okara military farm. They dare not come to us to
collect the cash rent."

Justifying their rejection of the new cash rent system,
he says, "In Kulyana Estate alone, the farm authorities introduced
the (cash rent) system at a very minimal rate of Rs 300 per acre per
annum. The rate has reached up to 30,000 per acre per annum now and,
resultantly, 50 per cent of the original tenants have been deprived of
these lands because they could not pay the rent on time."

The situation is no different in the other military
farms in the region. "The tenants are in possession of 7,000 out of a
total of 10,000 acres of land in the Probenabad and Bayal Ganj military
farms while 2,200 out of 3,200 acres in Renala Khurd military farms is in
their possession as well."

"Until 2002, we were ready to give a share of our
crops to the farm management but when they started killing our friends we
refused to pay them a penny," says ShabbirAhmed Sajjad, President,
AMP, Probenabad and Bayal Ganj military farms.

According to Sajjad, the military farm administration
is not in legal possession of the land "yet they are allotting the
land to retired military officials on the pretext of stud farming".

The ancestors of a majority of the tenants came to
these farms in the first decade of the 20th century, when the British
founded agricultural research, livestock and dairy farms across
approximately 68,000 acres of land in different districts of what now
constitutes Pakistan's Punjab. At that time, the greater part of the area
was dry forest and could not be used for commercial agriculture. The
British government initiated a canal irrigation project and lured both
Christian and Muslim families to till the farms. The new settlers were
promised permanent ownership of the land once they succeeded in making it
fertile. In 1913, when the land was brought to life by the farmers, the
then Punjab government leased it out to different departments, including
the Royal Army, through Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act
1912, for 20 years.

As per the official records of the Okara Revenue
Department, "This land was transferred by the government of Punjab to
the Central Government (Ministry of Defence) on lease vide Memo No. 1844-S
dated 9-8-1913 (not available in the office) for a period of 20 years at
the rate of 15000/- per annum for the entire land. The record of payment
of rent/lease money is neither available in the office nor provided by the
military authorities."

According to a high official of the revenue department
of District Okara, the royal army did not bother to extend the lease
agreement with the Punjab government and kept the 'possession' with it
until partition. "After partition, Pakistan army as a successor to
the Royal Army took over the possession of the land. They, too, have never
paid rent or lease of the land to the Punjab government. The Ministry of
Defence wrote a letter to the Punjab government in December 1999 to get
the possession of the land free of cost. The value of the land of military
farm in Okara alone, as calculated by Revenue Officer, was Rs 4 billion in
2001. So, Board of Revenue, Punjab, through letter D.O. No.
14-2001/631-CL-V dated April 13, 2001, refused to do so on legal
grounds."

An official in the District Coordination Office
informed TNS that a high level meeting of Rangers, DCO, MNAs and MPAs on
the issue of confrontation between the tenants and the military farm
administration had also taken place. Sohail Shahzad, DCO Okara, initially
not accessible, was available on the phone the next day. He confirmed that
the government meant to resolve the issue, "We have forwarded a
report to the provincial government explaining the ground realities on the
issue. All stakeholders including the political people have been taken on
board because we want to reach an agreement. We do not want to impose a
decision that can lead to any untoward situation.

"I can assure you that a serious development is
underway and should be in place in the next two to four months."

Farooq Tariq, spokesperson for Labour Party Pakistan,
the only political party supporting tenants since 2000, insists that the
Punjab government has not contacted the leadership of the tenants on the
issue. "They should be taken into confidence if the government is
serious about solving the issue. To me, the solution is very simple: give
the land ownership right to the tenants."

"Very simple …"

Mehar Abdul Sattar, the 37 years old general secretary
of Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP), is a graduate in Plant Pathology from
Agriculture University, Faisalabad, and a resident of Chak 4/4L Okara
military farm. He was a student when the military farm administration
introduced a system of cultivation for tenants in 2000. Being the son of a
tenant, Mehar naturally joined the resistance movement, eventually
becoming the GS of AMP.

Mehar has had to pay dearly for his commitment to the
cause of the tenants. He has been nominated in at least 25 different
cases, ranging from wood theft to murder. In 2008, he contested the
election to the Provincial Assembly from District Okara. He lost by a
small margin, though. Excerpts from an interview with TNS follow.

The News on Sunday: Would you like to share a brief
history of AMP with us?

Mehar Abdul Sattar: AMP is a movement of approximately
one million tenants of different military farms. It was a corollary of the
atrocities committed by the military farm administrations against the
tenants of the land. Until 2000, the tenants were completely unaware of
their rights. They were serving the military like slaves. But the military
high officials had their own plans: they wanted to allot this fertile land
to retired military officials in the name of stud farming. The tenants
were their only hurdle. So they decided to get rid of them.

In the first phase, they planned to change the status
of 'tenants' to 'contractors' of land because legally it would be easier
for them to evict a contractor from the land. They allured the tenants
with minimal cash rent but the latter refused to accept the new system. It
was a shock for the military high-ups who then decided to use force.
Tenants resisted and this resistance took the shape of a movement named
AMP.

TNS: The military farm administration says it had a
very cordial relationship with the tenants and blames AMP for provoking
confrontation. What do you say?

MAS: This is nonsense. AMP is being blamed because it
is not letting the military farm administration to achieve its targets. In
June 2000, the military farm administration announced implementing the new
system of contracts in these farms while AMP was formed at least one month
after the decision. It was purely a movement of tenants. They decided to
organise as a group under the banner of AMP. It's a peaceful movement and
seeks to safeguard the rights of the tenants. In fact, it was the first
real movement against the dictatorial decisions of the Pervez Musharraf
regime.

In the first year or so, we requested the farm
management to reverse the decision as we were ready to go back to the crop
sharing system of cultivation but they used force against us. We had no
option but to resist. We started using all available platforms to expose
the oppression of farms administration. In these nine years, at least 11
tenants have been killed in different incidents by the law-enforcing
agencies and the gangsters of the area while hundreds others have been
injured. They want to kill our movement by making such allegations. But
they will have to face humiliation on this front as well.

TNS: On the one hand, AMP criticises the military farm
administration for illegal possession of the land, on the other it has
been preaching the same to the tenants. How do you justify that?

MAS: To set the record straight, the tenants are not
the illegal holders of this land; they have been tilling the land for ages
under the Tenancy Act 1887. While there is no record available with the
revenue department that the Royal Army got the lease of the land extended
beyond 1934, but they kept on holding the land until 1947. After
partition, Pakistan Army did the same and took possession of land through
its Veterinary and Farm Crop (RVFC) department in the name of stud
farming. In 2000, the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Punjab government
for acquiring the permanent possession of the land, but the Board of
Revenue refused to comply on legal grounds. Therefore, the military is not
even a party on this land. In fact, Punjab government and tenants are two
parties to decide the issue.

TNS: Don't you think 'Malki Ya Maut' (ownership or
death) is a very extreme stance?

MAS: AMP has not coined this slogan. The tenants
adopted it after the security forces started committing atrocities against
them. In 2001, a tenant was killed in Renala Khurd military farm while in
2002 three others were killed in different incidents. False cases of
murder of two tenants were registered against me and other leaders of AMP
in 2002-03. For outsiders it can be a crude slogan but for us who have
faced the wrath of the security agencies there is no other option.

Our stance means that we are willing to pay any price
for our rights. We will die of hunger if thrown out of this land. It would
be the end of the world for us. We have no other source of income and
nowhere to go.

The News on Sunday: Why did the Human Rights Watch
decide to do a report on the military farms in Okara?

Ali Hasan Dayan: Until the Lawyer's Movement in 2007,
the Okara military farms dispute provided the most compelling example of
local resistance to the military's monopoly on privilege, power and land
in its heartland -- the Punjab.

TNS: In what ways is the Okara military farms dispute
unusual?

AHD: The emergence and persistence of such a movement
remains particularly unusual in the Punjabi context. In many ways, it was
a precursor for the popular resistance to the military seen since 2007 in
central Punjab in the form of the Lawyer's Movement.

The location of the dispute is rather problematic for
the Pakistan Army. The Punjab is the power-base of the military. It has
traditionally drawn the overwhelming majority of its rank and file from
the province and particularly from the districts that are now offering
resistance. Historically, the army has viewed the area as its backyard and
the local people as subservient allies -- given the latter's role as
labourers in a military-dominated economy. Hence, many in the military are
outraged that peasant farmers would dare to revolt against any tenancy
system that it saw fit to impose upon them.

The army likely fears the potential knock-on effects of
a compromise in Okara for its land operations nationwide and the damage
that any compromise might do to its status as Pakistan's most powerful and
feared institution. The army's evident fear is that such a revolt, if
allowed to fester or be accommodated, may lead to a reworking of the
patron-client relationships carefully nurtured by the military
establishment between itself and the traditional landed elites, between
itself and the tenant farmers and between the traditional landed elites
and the peasant farmers.

This is a dispute that both sides believe they cannot
afford to lose. For the Pakistani military establishment, control of land
is essential for maintaining its position within the Pakistani political
structure it believes that it cannot allow tenant farmers to challenge
this position. For tenant farmers, access to land is often the difference
between economic survival and abject poverty, between a full belly and
hunger, between a viable future and complete marginalisation.

TNS: What is the legal status of the farms?

AHD: The land is owned by the Punjab government.

TNS: Do the tenants have the right of land ownership?

AHD: Land ownership is a secondary issue. Unilateral
reworking of tenancy agreements by a landlord (the army) whose own title
to the land is disputed is the real issue.

TNS: What has been the impact of the HRW report?

AHD: The HRW report along with mobilisation by local
actors gave the issue massive international and national exposure and
prevented the army from engaging in large-scale brutality and sieges --
activities they had engaged in prior to the publication of the report. It
has helped maintain the status quo which suits the farmers rather than
allow the army to ride rough-shod over the farmers.

TNS: What is the way out of the situation?

AHD: The real title-holder to the land, the Punjab
provincial government, should be returned control of the land and should
seek a negotiated solution with the tenant farmers.

Timeline

* At the time of partition in 1947, ownership rights
were not granted to the tenant farmers, while refugees who had crossed
over from India were given ownership rights. In 1952, government
initiatives to allot land excluded the tenant farmers as well. Similarly,
the land reform acts of 1958 and 1972 also excluded these farms. Till this
day, the tenant farmers are struggling for permanent rights to the land
they have tilled for almost a century now.

* For the past seven years the tenant farmers in
Khanewal, along with one million mazarain in 10 other district of Punjab,
have been struggling against the large military owned companies (Military
Farms, Army Welfare Trust and Punjab Seed Corporation) over the control of
70,000 acres of highly cultivable land in Punjab. These farms were founded
in the early part of 20th century.

Fighting poverty for over a century, the tenant farmers
of Okara submitted an application with the Punjab Board of Revenue on
March 24, 1999, to obtain the proprietary rights on the aforementioned
farms.

* In 2000, the military unilaterally tried to change
the rules, demanding that the farmers sign new rental contracts requiring
them to pay rent in cash.

* The tenants organised themselves as Anjuman Mazarain
Punjab (AMP) to fight for ownership rights over the lands.

The Rangers were ordered to the districts in "aid
of civil authority". The latter included a police force of eight to
ten thousand that had been deployed to the area in May 2002.

* The Rangers besieged eighteen villages in Okara
district twice from August 24, 2002, for approximately three months, and
from May 7, 2003, to August 5, 2003. The first siege took place following
the Rangers' alleged killing of farmer Salman Masih, the second following
the killing of farmer Mohammad Amir.

* The dispute reached its peak between May 5, 2003, and
June 12, 2003, when Okara Military Farms and the 150,000 people who lived
in eighteen villages were besieged for over a month by police and Pakistan
Rangers. The siege, which involved the imposition of a curfew, severe
restrictions on movement within and into the district, and the
disconnection of water, electricity and telephone lines, ended only when
farmers were forced to sign contracts.

* On May 10, 2003, Sarwar Mujahid, one of the few
independent journalists reporting from Okara, was arrested on charges of
"inciting the public against Rangers" and "terrorism".

* On April 17, 2008, over 5000 tenants and peasants
participated in a peasant conference held at Okara Military Farms on the
international day of peasants. They reminded the government to act as
promised.

* On January 19, 2009, over 2000 tenants gathered at
Renala Khurd in a public meeting by AMP also demanded the land rights. The
police occupied the platform in the morning and asked the organisers to
cancel this public meeting. They refused and later when the peasants
started to arrive in the tractor trolleys, the police fled from the place
and the meeting went ahead.

status

Land rights or wrongs

The tenants' struggle is a political rather than a
narrowly legalistic one

By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

Almost 9 years ago, soon after General Pervez Musharraf
had taken power, a seemingly innocuous attempt by the authorities of the
so-called Okara military farms to change the tenure status of thousands of
tenants who had tilled these state-owned lands for decades triggered the
emergence of the movement which I believe was the beginning of the end for
the military regime. Few would have guessed that the plains of central
Punjab -- the traditional heartland of the military's power -- would be
the site of a highly symbolic struggle against the deeply entrenched
corporate power of the men in khaki.

At its peak the movement engulfed approximately a
million people in at least 6 districts of Punjab. But the heartbeat
remained the Okara military farm where the confrontation between the
principal antagonists in the conflict was at its most ferocious. It was
here that the military's perennial invocation of the 'greater national
interest' was most overtly challenged. In short, the Okara tenants exposed
the military as a patently illegal land-grabber; the disputed land is
owned by the government of Punjab, and the military has no legal claim to
it. As usual, this was supposed not to matter, but the Okara tenants made
sure that it did.

This peasant movement was distinctive in numerous ways;
first, it was not just those who directly controlled land that were at the
forefront of the struggle. All residents of the affected villages,
including those who stood to benefit very little materially from a
tenants' success, joined in. Of the 7 people who were killed at the height
of tensions in 2002-3, at least 3 were non-tenants. This reflected a sense
of community that was arguably better developed in comparison to the
prototypical Punjabi village in which authority relations within the
peasantry are much more hierarchical.

Then there was the much-discussed role of women. It
must be noted that in the initial instance there was great resistance from
within the community to a public role for women in the movement. But once
state repression reached new heights, it was simply pragmatic for the
Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP) -- the representative organisation of the
tenants -- to organise women in the affected villages because the
authorities had no hesitation in using unbridled force against men. This
reluctant acceptance of the need for women's involvement necessarily
became a more principled commitment to undoing some -- if not all -- of
the patriarchal norms within the community. Progress was, and is, slow,
and when things returned to some semblance of normalcy post-2004, women's
role was once again reduced. But there can be no doubt that gender
relations in Okara and elsewhere changed in the course of this movement.

While the ability of the AMP to resist eviction was
primarily a function of the organisation and togetherness of the community
and repeated heroics in the face of virtual sieges of the affected
villages, there was also a significant external dimension in the form of a
sustained public campaign in major urban centres. The media -- both
national and international -- was mobilised and the military itself
acknowledged that it lost the 'media war'. High-profile global
organisations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) further raised the heat on
the military, eventually forcing it to pull back from its coercive posture
and tacitly accept the tenants' de facto control over the land (see Ali
Hasan Dayan's interview).

As with other movements, this one too suffered its fair
share of setbacks. The typically shallow interventions of some donor
organisations caused rifts within the AMP leadership, the most obvious of
which appeared to acquire a religious dimension, Christians versus
Muslims. That Christians in Punjab continue to be treated virtually as
untouchables is known to most serious scholars of society, and while
tensions to this effect existed within the tenant movement from the
beginning, the space for Christians to gain social and political space
nonetheless increased, in a way similar to women. That this space was
eroded by leadership conflicts was unfortunate, but in my reading much
more was made of the 'religious split' than the situation in reality.

Political activists from the outside that were closely
affiliated with the movement were not able to extend the politicisation
that had taken place in Okara and on other state farms further. This had
as much to do with the objective political environment as any subjective
factor. If nothing else, as I have already mentioned, the tenant movement
did spark broader debates about the military's political and economic role
that eventually culminated in the lawyer-led street movement against the
Musharraf regime.

It is to these wider debates that I return in
conclusion. It is important to remember that the tenants' struggle was a
political one rather than a narrowly legalistic one. By this I mean that
the AMP invoked the fact that the military had no legal basis to the
disputed land not as a means of establishing the tenants' legal rights per
se, but to highlight the moral and political injustice in the historical
conduct of the 'guardian of the nation' towards the people that it is
supposed to protect. Beyond a certain point the AMP refused to appeal to
the law as a well-thought out strategy under the pretext that the legal
and policing institutions of the state remain virtually colonial (and
therefore inherently anti-people). The struggle then was both against the
immediate oppression faced by the tenants and the structure of power more
generally, which includes the law itself.

It is worth recalling here that the crux of the
(Congress's) independence struggle against the British was defiance of the
law. Civil disobedience was a means of challenging the moral and political
right of the British to provide formal legal cover to the indefensible
crime of colonialism. Knowingly or unknowingly the AMP revived just such a
politics while fending off a threat to the existence of the peasant
communities that it represented. In many ways the significance of the
struggle on the Okara military farm remains understated precisely because
it is all too often represented exclusively in legalistic terms.

Finally the importance of such a movement emerging in
the Punjabi heartland should also not be underemphasized. In recent times
much has been made of the deep fragmentation in Pakistan along ethnic
lines, and the fact of a deep divide between the central Punjab and the
rest of the country. It would be foolish to deny this fact, but it would
also be unreasonable in light of the AMP's struggle to suggest that the
working poor of Punjab remain uncritically committed to the national
security paradigm of the Punjabi-dominated establishment. It is an
historical fact that a large part of the Punjabi smallholding peasantry
was coopted by the (post) colonial state into an all-encompassing
structure of power in which the rest of what is Pakistan was condemned to
peripheral status. But it is also true that this cooption has never been
complete and with time, I believe, is increasingly giving way to
discontent. It is in the alliance of working people in Punjab and
oppressed nationalities that the lie the greatest prospect of change in
Pakistan. And if such an alliance were to take shape the AMP will have
played at least some part in making it possible.

In the political court

PPP, PML-N vow to solve the tenants' issue through
negotiations

By Waqar Gillani

It seems that the two main political parties of Punjab
-- Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz -- have taken
due note of the worsening situation at Okara military farms and hope to
reach a settlement through negotiations.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Sohna, provincial minister for
Labour and a PPP MPA from Okara, tells TNS that the party is well aware of
the tenants' movement and has offered help already. "Since the matter
is to be dealt with by the federal government we are going to make
recommendations to President Asif Ali Zardari after he returns from his
foreign tour.

"We hope the President will make the decision in
favour of the tenants within a month."

He says the party will announce its support to the
tenants in a convention to be held in Okara soon.

"There is a need to form a parliamentary committee
of the National Assembly which should look into the matter. We hope the
party leadership of District Okara will recommend this to the federal
government soon," says Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed, former PPP MNA, and a
noted human rights activist.

It is learnt that the Punjab government has started
making serious efforts to resolve the issue through negotiations.
"The government -- which is party to the issue by virtue of it
leasing out the land to the military -- is not only preparing a report on
the issue but has also held meetings, especially after the killing of
three tenants in an alleged exchange of fire with the army men in Okara on
April 6, 2009," Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khosa, senior advisor to Punjab
Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, tells TNS.

Khosa held a meeting with the members of the Punjab
Assembly from District Okara and the Board of Revenue officials recently
and sent a brief summary of the issue to the CM recommending to him to
take up the issue with the army and the federal government.

"The situation is worsening by the day and clashes
between the tenants and the army are a common phenomenon. This has
pressurised us to discuss and evolve a strategy to resolve the issue
politically."

The crisis has deepened to the extent where the tenants
have also opened fire at the Pakistan Army and the Pakistan Rangers, Khosa
adds. "Now they are chanting slogans such as 'Malki Ya Maut'
(ownership or death). They are gaining strength and sometimes even the
Pakistan Rangers cannot fight them."

Akhlaq Ahmed Tarrar, Senior Member Board of Revenue (SMBR),
Punjab, who was also present in the above mentioned meeting, told TNS that
the meeting discussed all aspects of the issue and decided to move towards
negotiated settlements.

He said that the Pakistan Army had many pieces of land
in different districts where the tenants were working and wanted their
right to ownership. However, he was unable to give out the exact figures.

On the other hand, Punjab Chief Secretary Javed Mahmood
tells TNS of "signals I got from the army top brass" to make
recommendations to resolve the issue amicably. "That is why I have
asked the Board of Revenue to prepare a detailed report on it."

Although the military has had long-term leases to the
land in the past and exerted effective control on it, in some cases for
decades, a formal title to the land continues to rest with the government
of Punjab. Repeated attempts by the military to effect a permanent
transfer of the land to the federal ministry of defense have been rebuffed
by the Punjab provincial body that holds title to the land.

"This land is… for institutional
use"

--Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) spokesperson

By Nadeem Iqbal

The News on Sunday: What is the background of the
remount and military farms of the Pakistan Army?

ISPR Spokesperson: Remount farms can be divided into
two -- those that deal with animal breeding for military operation and
those that provide troops with dairy products and fodder for the mules and
horses etc.

The remount and military farms were established in the
British government in 1780 mainly to facilitate the import of horses and
pack animals from Europe, Australia, Middle East and South Africa to meet
the operational requirements of the army. In 1895, on the face of
increasing requirements, it was decided that instead of import, the
British government should have its own breeding areas and remount depots.
Later, under Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, a total
of 4,512 squares of lands on both sides of lower Bari Doab Canal were
placed at the disposal of defence ministry by the Punjab government. After
partition, a similar arrangement continues to cater to horse and mule of
the combat formations deployed on the line of control in Kashmir.

The establishment of military farms was necessitated in
1880 by the repeated breakout of milk-borne diseases. In 1913, the land
comprising 22,700 acres was reserved for defence ministry in Okara for the
production of fodder. After 15 years in 1927, six military dairy farms
were established to provide disease-free milk to troops. Of the total
22,700 acres, 2200 acres were reserved by the military for
self-cultivation while remaining was given to lessees on crop-sharing and
yearly lease basis. Of the present day 23 military dairy farms and 2 milk
powder factories, 22 dairy farms were established in the British time. In
Okara there are six military dairy farms. In crop-sharing (Batai), the
lessee shares the produce with the military as a rent while the military
bears the cost of the inputs and abayana etc and gives them the cropping
programme. The tree on the land remains the property of the military
farms.

As regards remount lands, 4512 squares of the total
3578 (74%) are with the civilian breeders known as Gori Pall and 934
squares (26%) named stud farms are with the retired army personnel. The
stud lands are allotted for initial 10 years and granted again only if the
allottee has provided the army with a specified number of animals.
Otherwise it is cancelled and allotted to another retired soldier.

Single square or Gori Pall, on the other hand, is
allotted by the district collector revenue to a civilian for 6 years and
renewed for another 5 years on the recommendation of the remount officer,
an army representative. The land remains with the family even after the
death of the allottee, on the same terms and conditions.

TNS: What is the issue between the tenants and the
military farms authorities?

ISPR: There are two different issues: one relates to
the military farms and the other to the stud lands. The issue of military
farm land erupted in 2000 when the produce was declining and the demand of
the military was increasing while on the part of lessee there was rampant
pilferage, resistance to use modern machinery and not following military
cropping progamme. So it was decided to give more incentives to the lessee
and crop-sharing was changed into rent-in-cash system. Under the new
system, the lease period was extended to 7 years on a yearly rent of Rs
3000-4000 per acre which was almost 50% of the prevailing market rate. The
lease rent was also to be paid in three easy cash instalments. Unlike
crop-sharing in which the lessee was allowed to keep only one cow or
buffalo and two young stock animals, the new contract allowed him to keep
as many animals as he liked.

Initially, the new contract system was welcomed by the
people but on the instigation of certain land grabbers who alleged that
the military wanted to evict them, the people were forced at gunpoint not
to adopt the new system and pay the lease amount or provide fodder to the
army. Anybody defying them was beaten up, socially boycotted and forced to
leave the land. Over 600 cases of illegal subletting the land, tree
cutting, selling the land, and damage to the property have been reported
to the police but whenever action is taken against the miscreants, they
block the national highway.

The stud land issue is a recent phenomenon. During the
2008 elections, some political contestants promised Anjuman Mazarain
Punjab (AMP) that they would help them fulfil their demands. Taking the
queue, the AMP incited the locals to create trouble in the stud lands and
forcibly take over land. Apart from fresh stud, the allottees who have
been granted land in Renala/Coloyana in the past are also being denied
their possessions. There is an armed gang of motorcyclists which is
harassing them and collecting illegal bhatha (fine). There are a number of
violent incidents in which the mob has attacked the stud farm owners,
destroyed their property or occupied it and posed threat to their lives.

TNS: In this day and age of scientific advancement, are
these farms still important for military operations?

ISPR: Yes, these are. Not only are these farms catering
to the dairy needs of the soldiers, keeping them healthy, but also
providing them with horses and mules which are the effective means of
transportation in difficult mountainous areas like Fata and Kashmir, not
only in war times but also for the rehabilitation works of the earthquake
victims. If the military had to procure these products from the market it
would cost billions of rupees to the national exchequer. And these mules
are of a rare breed, specific only to Pakistan and India or to a small
percentage in Brazil. There is an annual requirement of 1400 horses/mules
for the army and the civilian armed forces and organisations which are
being produced by the two breeding lands.

TNS: The legal claim of the military over these farms
has been questioned by the AMP. What exactly is its legal status?

ISPR: The military farms and the remount lands were put
under defence use by a British government resolution no. D-3248, dated
December 10, 1925, and the Colonisation of Government Lands Act V (Punjab)
of 1912 respectively which was later adopted by the government of Pakistan
in 1947 under the existing law which states: "The government of
Pakistan has the right to remain in undisturbed possession of any land in
its occupation in any province on 1st April 1921, subject to the
conditions and rulings, so long as such occupation is necessary for the
effective discharge of its duties." It also says that a "local
government has no power without the consent of the government of Pakistan
to alienate or in any way to interfere in regard to the land situated
within the provincial boundaries which is in the occupation of the central
government."

In 2000, when the lessees approached the lower courts,
their cases were dismissed. Then a writ was filed in the High Court which,
in 2001, rejected their plea saying "the petitioners are the lessees
of the land and the period of their lease has since run over. They are in
possession of the property without any lawful basis. If they want to stay
on land, they have to adhere to the revised policy of the Defence Ministry
and pay rent in cash." The lessees' intra-court appeal has also been
dismissed and now the case is pending in the Supreme Court.

TNS: How do you respond to the recent incidents of
violence and to the allegations levelled by the tenants that the military
is supporting the culprits?

ISPR: The facts have all been mutilated. The truth is
that on September 28, 2008, land grabbers killed a 15 years old boy named
Sarfraz alias Bhola and lodged a fake FIR against the stud grantees. The
mother of the boy sought our protection and told a session judge that
those who brought the boy's dead body were the real killers. Now an FIR
has been registered against the miscreants.

As regards the killings of three persons on April 6,
2009, the so-called Anjuman Mazarain Coloyana, District Okara, tried to
occupy 25 acres land in Chak 28/2-R which was surrendered by Brig (retd)
Muhammad Asfar Khan to the revenue department and was with it on 'superdari'.
About 50 persons including the women chanting slogans of 'Malki ya Maut!'
entered into the area and beat the superdars named Sajjad Haider and Riaz.
The persons in the stud farm started shooting in the air in self defence.
Some miscreants took positions behind the crowd and opened fire, killing
three persons -- Abbas, Rahim and Ameer Ali -- and injuring 15 others. The
incident involved two civilian groups; the Army had nothing to do with it
because the land was on 'superdari' with revenue department and the land
grabbers forcibly wanting to occupy the land before it could be allotted
to any other retired army officer by the GHQ.

To date, over 100 squares of land of stud grantees is
in the illegal possession of land grabbers who have victimised over 90
stud grantees.

TNS: Tell us if this land is for military's
institutional use or for private use of individual army officers?
Secondly, how much land has been given to retired military officials to
make stud farms?

ISPR: This land is not for army officers' private use;
it is for institutional use. The military land is not awarded even to
retired military officers. However, of the 4512 squares of remount land,
3578 squares are with civilian breeders and 934 squares of stud land with
619 retired army personnel.

TNS: What is the solution? What is the way ahead to end
this situation which is costing human lives?

ISPR: If the lessees have doubts that under the new
system they would be evicted and if they want a reversal to the
crop-sharing system then we have no problem. The solution lies in
implementing the government laws and rules and the decision of the courts.